This is exactly the same as other totalitarian regimes did and do to re-"educate" (or to say it plainly, indoctrinate) their citizens with ideological propaganda to support the system. The USSR did it before the wall fell in 1989, and now the megacorps are doing it in the USA. Most Russians were clever enough to see through such propaganda, I'm curious to see if Americans are just as smart.

Google "Stalin's funeral", you may be in for a shock. The inmates of Stalin's camps commonly believed their beloved Stalin would one day come and rescue them, the sad truth is he personally reviewed and edited the next day's execution list every night. And yes I can see a metaphor with "job creators" playing the role of Stalin. - such is the power of propaganda that the victim (AKA "useful idiot") will fervently work against his own interest.

If you take the time to read over that you will see some interesting facts.

1. They consider consumer goods bought in the country by traveling foreigners exports (t-shirts, cake, cell phones, etc) I don't think that should count its cheating since those goods were not manufactured here and we are just middle men. Walmart is not an exporter of TV's, they are a retailer.

2. The other factor they add in which accounts for 500 billion of that is software, movie, and TV royalties. These are not physically manufactured goods or property as much as your civil ideology likes to believe they will never be property. The wealth from this industry is even worse distributed then the wealth from the auto and oil industries. It only accounts for probably the top 1000 wealthiest families and is probably immediately exported to tax havens.

So I am going to call $2 trillion exports bullshit, its great that we can use Hollywood accounting there also.

I would like to see numbers that show real exports of physical goods, that are useful in a real sense, like water, steel, oil, natural gas, salt, food, cars, etc...

You may not like that they count stuff that tourists buy, but I think the article's use of "export" is pretty standard. Besides, such goods have to count as exports since they also count as imports when those retailers bring them in.

When you say "your", I don't know whose civil ideology you're talking about, but I don't accept the legitimacy of the multiple different information monopolies that get lumped together as "intellectual propery", so it's clearly not me. But we're not talking should and shouldn'

500$ billion is not a majority of 2 trillion. But its a pretty big chunk.

I apologize for the "your ideology" statement. And yes my grammar is terrible today.

I think the linked website disregards that most of our economy is service based and tries as it might like me by using laymans logic to make it look like the service industry is an export industry. That is what I am trying to illustrate. But as you point out it may be the prevailing standard by which exports are measured. In which case I only have a dif

1. They consider consumer goods bought in the country by traveling foreigners exports (t-shirts, cake, cell phones, etc) I don't think that should count its cheating since those goods were not manufactured here and we are just middle men. Walmart is not an exporter of TV's, they are a retailer.

2. The other factor they add in which accounts for 500 billion of that is software, movie, and TV royalties. These are not physically manufactured goods or property as much as your civil ideology likes to believe they will never be property. The wealth from this industry is even worse distributed then the wealth from the auto and oil industries. It only accounts for probably the top 1000 wealthiest families and is probably immediately exported to tax havens.

So I am going to call $2 trillion exports bullshit, its great that we can use Hollywood accounting there also.

These are the correct accounting definitions of exports - the money used to pay for these items came from outside the country. Semantic arguments like you are making matter little to the accountants. What matters is that the money on both sides of the transaction balance out. And in both these cases, the money used to pay for these goods is deducted from the "other country" column and is added to the "U.S." column. So they are exports.

If you try to classify them as domestic purchases as you are suggesting, the amount of money earned by workers domestically ends up not equaling the amount of money spent domestically (after factoring in money put into/taken out of savings accounts and the like). And the accountants throw a hissy fit.

It only accounts for probably the top 1000 wealthiest families and is probably immediately exported to tax havens.

This is an interesting one. I'll have to ask my account friend about it. But I suspect until that money is used to buy something (whether in the U.S. or abroad), it's still considered U.S. money. Just because they put it into an offshore account doesn't mean they won't eventually use it to buy something domestically.

Aren't they protected from liability as long as they act as "dumb pipes"? Doesn't his mean they are opening themselves up for liability? Yeah, I understand the ones that own media companies but what about the rest? Seems like a way to lose customers is all.

Everyone should draw a crappy picture in paint, host it on something free like google sites, and spread links that bring people to a second page that says "You don't have permission to click this link" with a link to the picture itself. Then bring copyright complaints to all the ISPs of all the people who inevitably click that and hence download your copyrighted crap without permission. Flood the fuckers.

Aren't they protected from liability as long as they act as "dumb pipes"? Doesn't his mean they are opening themselves up for liability? Yeah, I understand the ones that own media companies but what about the rest? Seems like a way to lose customers is all.

Everyone should draw a crappy picture in paint, host it on something free like google sites, and spread links that bring people to a second page that says "You don't have permission to click this link" with a link to the picture itself. Then bring copyright complaints to all the ISPs of all the people who inevitably click that and hence download your copyrighted crap without permission. Flood the fuckers.

They aren't going to be losing customers because in MOST markets there is no competition for a customer to choose. With very little risk to their market share they don't have a lot to lose.

They are also government protected monopolies. People like to think our ISPs run on a free market system but its no better then a country like Brazil. In order to be permitted to sell internet other then dial up the palm greasing you need to do is probably in the order of billions or trillions now.

Not to mention everyone here seems to be missing the point of WHY they were so quick to jump on the bandwagon...does anybody here think these megacorp ISPs give a rat's ass about any copyrights they don't profit from? Fuck no but what they DO care about is customers actually getting what they paid for!

You see folks for years the ISP have oversold the HELL out of their lines, in some cases claiming a good 5 times what they could actually deliver because they counted on so few people actually using what they paid for they could get away with it. Then a funny thing happened....people actually started using their connections. oh they'll SAY its because of piracy, but that is bullshit as I've known plenty of pirates and most are still downloading DVDrips that suck a hell of a lot less bandwidth than somebody like me who doesn't pirate uses. Where is my bandwidth going? Steam, Hulu, YouTube and for awhile Netflix.

See the ISPs don't like this for a couple of reasons. One since they are all now in the content business, an obvious conflict of interest BTW, well they sure as fuck ain't gonna be happy if you are watching Hulu instead of paying them for their overpriced channel packages are they? Not gonna be watching their PPV if you already have netflix, and if you are using Steam or OnLive that is hours you COULD have been giving them money for content that went to gaming companies instead, can't have that. The second reason hurts their bottom line even worse, for years they haven't added shit as far as new lines and capacity and now that even grandma is using YouTube and Hulu that means if they don't find a way to "thin the herd" of those that actually use what they paid for? Good God man, they may actually have to...gasp!....stop handing all the money out as bonuses to the execs! The horror!

So I have NO doubt that the first ones to see six strikes? Will NOT be pirates, it'll be the ones actually using close to the full amount they paid for. The Steam users, netflix and Hulu users, all those that get close to their cap every single month will get a "uh oh, you used what you paid for, you dirty filthy pirate you" and run out on a rail. that way they can keep falsely advertising their have more capacity than they have, keep giving the profits as bonuses, and keep their content making crazy money because that doesn't go against your cap don't ya know.

You see folks for years the ISP have oversold the HELL out of their lines, in some cases claiming a good 5 times what they could actually deliver because they counted on so few people actually using what they paid for they could get away with it.

If your theory was correct, then Verizon shouldn't be part of this, as they don't oversell their wired connections. They really do have full bandwidth available to every user. There are times where DSL doesn't get full speed, but that is because of the distance from the CO, not the lack of network bandwidth.

Allow me to quote from Wikipedia under products and services, emphasis mine: "Verizon launched its FiOS Video service in Keller, Texas on September 22, 2005. FiOS TV uses an optical fiber network to deliver more than 500 total channels, more than 180 digital music channels, more than 95 high-definition channels, and 10,000 video-on-demand titles.

What did I say the first reason was again? Because they were not liking competition with their content services? Well there ya go, there is your reason, if you a

Yeah, I understand the ones that own media companies but what about the rest? Seems like a way to lose customers is all.

You're not just the customer, you're the product (some of you already locked-in by contracts). For those ISPs that are not owned by big media conglomerates, they'll just get money for the ad-impressions that are generated by this surveillance system.

Everyone should draw a crappy picture in paint, host it on something free like google sites, and spread links that bring people to a second page that says "You don't have permission to click this link" with a link to the picture itself. Then bring copyright complaints to all the ISPs of all the people who inevitably click that and hence download your copyrighted crap without permission. Flood the fuckers.

That's not a stupid idea.

What is the procedure for filing a complaint under this system? I'd really love to write a script and post it in github for everyone to copy.

The procedure is you have to hire an expensive legal firm to submit requests to the ISP. They carefully priced it is that it isn't worth while for individuals and small companies, only large ones that can do tends of thousands of requests at a time.

Aren't they protected from liability as long as they act as "dumb pipes"? Doesn't his mean they are opening themselves up for liability? Yeah, I understand the ones that own media companies but what about the rest?

The ones that own media companies could be in even more trouble, if another media company decides to break ranks (which happens all the time in disputes over carry fees).

Suppose that Disney claimed that Comcast wasn't passing on as many infringement notices for Disney material as they should, but were passing on everything for NBC/Universal?

"residential Internet accounts are the focus of our program. The vast majority of businesses, including those like Starbucks that provide legitimate open Wi-Fi connections, will have an Internet connection that is tailored to a business operation and these business networks are not part of the CAS and will never be sent a Copyright Alert." the rest of the site looks like an advertisement for the major media companies, directing you to "their" content as if it is the only game in town, while appearing

The fact that the content industry has no problems with having the ISP industry monitoring their CUSTOMERS use of the Internet makes me sick.

Some rights are more important than others. My right to not be spied on by a company I (not the content industry) am doing business with is much more important than the content industries desire to make sure they're paid every dime they think they deserve.

The ISPs should have fought like hell to achieve a common carrier status which would have allowed them to tell big content to pound sand. Oh and as for the content industry owning many ISPs our government should have never allowed that.

I'll say it again. If your business model requires a police state to be viable, you need to fucking go out of business.

The fact that the content industry has no problems with having the ISP industry monitoring their CUSTOMERS use of the Internet makes me sick.

It may make you sick, but it's nothing new.

The ISP industry has always tried various ways of getting into the double-dipping business.

Hell!! Even my freaking TiVo started inserting interactive ads every time I touch its menu. For some executives, it really doesn't matter if they're killing off their company in the long term, if it means that they can increase their revenue in the short term.

That's because you opted for the monthly payment. Buy the lifetime service plan for a couple hundred bucks and be done with it. My first Series 1 Tivo from 1999 (with lifetime service) is still being used at my vacation home. The cable provider there still has an analog tier. My service cost over that time period is about 75 cents per month. Not what I'd call "outrageously overpriced"?

re: the ads. What ads? The only ones I've ever seen on the digital boxes are lines of text at the bottom of the menu scre

I ended up building a Core i5 mini-itx HTPC for slightly more then the cost of Tivo 'lifetime' service. Infinitely more powerful and flexible then any Tivo, ever. Records 4 streams, 3 TB of storage (+ a hot swap external bay), automatically strips out commercials and compresses the shows to more efficient formats. It is also significantly smaller then my Tivo Premiere and looks just as at home in the A/V rack. No subscription cost at all. When my Hard drive fills up I pull it out and add it to the NAS and

The fact that the content industry has no problems with having the ISP industry monitoring their CUSTOMERS use of the Internet makes me sick.

Some rights are more important than others. My right to not be spied on by a company I (not the content industry) am doing business with is much more important than the content industries desire to make sure they're paid every dime they think they deserve.

The ISPs should have fought like hell to achieve a common carrier status which would have allowed them to tell big content to pound sand. Oh and as for the content industry owning many ISPs our government should have never allowed that.

I'll say it again. If your business model requires a police state to be viable, you need to fucking go out of business.

Most of the largest ISPs are owned by content providers (Time-Warner) or own content providers (Comcast) or have business interests working with content providers (all cable internet providers)

That network that isnt 'ours' crosses a billon public right-of-ways. They may own the wire, but we own the land it runs through, its not as simple as you make it to be. The public has a vested interest in regulating ISPs and we should be doing more to leash them.

How exactly switching to any other DNS would help? Unless they subvert only data on the DNS that's handed over via DHCP but leave all other port 53 traffic, queries will be mangled just the same. There's little you can do there other than tunnelling all DNS somehow.

How exactly switching to any other DNS would help? Unless they subvert only data on the DNS that's handed over via DHCP but leave all other port 53 traffic, queries will be mangled just the same. There's little you can do there other than tunnelling all DNS somehow.

It seems to me that the content of an IP packet should be protected under wiretapping laws. What gives the ISPs the right to monitor my traffic. If they do have this right, do they also have the right to break or somehow spoof encrypted traffic as well?

It seems to me that the content of an IP packet should be protected under wiretapping laws. What gives the ISPs the right to monitor my traffic. If they do have this right, do they also have the right to break or somehow spoof encrypted traffic as well?

The ISP has the right to monitor your traffic because you signed an agreement that says they are allowed to, and are allowed to take action.

They aren't breaking encrypted traffic; the endpoints are the endpoints whether the traffic is encrypted or not. If one of those endpoints is a "MarkMonitor" entity, they are perfectly within their right to receive any information they do.

Now, if only a totally encrypted environment existed with no palatable way to identify users..... Oh, wait, Freenet does exist. It's just so damned slow that using it is, well.. feasible, but not something fast-paced people (read: most) are going to accept. However, it is an option.

Just because you signed something, the constitution and the law still applies, right? Or is the USA constitution and law so silly that people can sign away their legal rights? If so, the USA needs to changes their laws, fast. In most civilized countries, signing something that would give one or more parties in the contract rights that violate the law, that clause is invalid.

Exactly, that is what the commercial entities having you sign documents hope for. they hope that you have absolutely no clue how the law works, and that you will give into anything that they say, and not question it.

It seems to me that the content of an IP packet should be protected under wiretapping laws. What gives the ISPs the right to monitor my traffic. If they do have this right, do they also have the right to break or somehow spoof encrypted traffic as well?

I dislike CAS as much as everyone else but lets be real about what is and is not happening here.

The ISPs are not searching their pipes for infringements they are being notified by rights holders...although it is anyones guess how rights holders are determining infringement.. most obvious low hanging fruit is P2P where your participation in a torrent is essentially public knowledge and requires no spying or intercepting of pipes.

If, as is described on the copyrightinformation.org website, the copyright alert system is implemented such that the IP addresses it gathers genuinely are being used by infringers, I don't have much of a problem with this, since I don't download infringing content, nor do I do anything which might permit or enable other people to use my internet connection who may, and I do not hold much sympathy for those who do.

There are, however, two major flaws that concern me greatly. The first is that if they are falsely alleging that a subscriber infringed on copyright with one of these alerts, the subscriber cannot actually challenge the alert until after about the 3rd or 4th one. The other issue, an even bigger one, is that all of the alerts, even including the ones which permit an alleged perpetrator to appeal, are worded very much like a form letter, and do not contain any particulars about the accusation, like what work was allegedly infringed on, which network the alleged infringement occurred on, when it occurred, etc. It doesn't even identify the *TYPE* of alleged infringing content, which strikes me as incrediby unfair.... and has a very similar feel in my opinion to the notion of, say, being stopped and given a warning by a police officer, but them not telling you what it was that you supposedly even did. If you don't know what they are even talking about, then how are you expected to sensibly respond, beyond calling them liars?

The difference between your Martin Niemoller reference and what I am saying is that what they are going after, is that in Niemoller's case, the people "they came for" may have, at worst, been considered the fringes of society, but they weren't necessarily doing anything that was previously against the law. Copyright infringement actually *IS* illegal, and has been for quite a long time. I have absolutely no problem whatsoever if people who infringe on copyright could be reasonably held accountable for the

Don't stop at copyright infringement "on a computer". Tell us how you don't commit copyright infringement at all. How you refuse to sing happy birthday in a my public place like restaurants. How you never tell a joke that you heard someone else say... That sort of thing.

Singing "happy birthday" to somebody you personally know, even in a public place, is a well established case of fair use, and not infringing on copyright, because the song is not being sung for the benefit of the public, but only for people personally known to those who are singing. If it were sung in such a way that it was apparent there was some deliberate intent for other people to hear it (and not merely a side effect of simply being nearby), then a copyright violation could be applicable, but such

Do you have a court case to show somebody being sued for singing happy birthday to somebody that they personally knew, was not for any direct or indirect commercial benefit, and when the singing was not ever deliberately intended for the enjoyment of others who may have been in the vicinity?

I mean, I can't find a court case to show that it's legal for me to have a hard boiled egg for breakfast tomorrow either... that doesn't mean it isn't true.

Copyright infringement actually *IS* illegal, and has been for quite a long time. I have absolutely no problem whatsoever if people who infringe on copyright could be reasonably held accountable for their actions. You certainly can't argue that it's even a remotely unusual thing for many people in our society to do today.

And therein lies the problem. If so many people do it (you yourself estimate that 75% of the population does) then why should it be illegal at all?

And during prohibition, most people who wanted to drink managed to anyway.

Note that it was NOT illegal to drink alcohol during Prohibition.

Nor was it illegal to OWN alcohol.

What was illegal was making it and selling it.

And the negative effects of enforcement efforts, up to and including the rise of organized crime and widespread violence and corruption, ultimately led to a frickin' constitutional amendment being ratified!

I'm assuming you're talking about the Constitutional Amendment that repealed the Co

And a fat lot of good that did. Anyone who wanted to drink it wound up doing business with someone who made it and sold it.

I remember my Grandmother telling me about how convenient it was where she grew up; the local sheriff's office was the distributor, so you could call them up and they'd deliver.

Note that "ultimately led to a frickin' constitutional amendment being ratified!" wouldn't have been possible without the previous Amendment, which also got the required votes in Congress and the various State Le

The difference between your Martin Niemoller reference and what I am saying is that what they are going after, is that in Niemoller's case, the people "they came for" may have, at worst, been considered the fringes of society, but they weren't necessarily doing anything that was previously against the law. Copyright infringement actually *IS* illegal, and has been for quite a long time.

I'll take copyright infringement seriously the day that Big Media starts taking the public domain seriously, and not one second before. They thought they could play this game of indefinitely extending the length of copyright terms, effectively stealing from the public domain and all of humanity without there being unforeseen consequences? Guess what? People now take copyrights about as seriously as Big Media does, i.e. not at all [techdirt.com].

Depends on your jurisdiction. Where I live, it's borderline, and probably on the verge of being legalized within the next couple of years.

However, I neither consider myself particularly entitled or above any so-called commoner (I consider myself a commoner). I do, however, hold a lot of respect for the general concept of copyright, even if I do not necessarily respect all of the methods that are employed by organizations which utilize it. Infringing on copyright, however, weakens

Infringing on copyright, however, weakens its practicality for *ALL*
copyright holders, and as confidence in copyright to protect a holder's
interest wanes, they can and almost certainly will resort to other means to
protect their interests which can only result in a vastly reduced practical
availability of future works as they resort to self-censorship, artificially
limiting distribution, and other tactics.

Interesting, but a very passive, and mostly reactive, outlook. In particular, the repeate

You can't necessarily offer that guarantee when the content maker somehow prevents people from accessing their content in the first place except under terms that they strictly control. Sure such technologies can be hacked, but not everybody is going to necessarily make use of such hacks, and the net result will still be a reduction of widespread availability of such works.

You could be inflicting on copyright constantly without being aware of it. I'm fairly certain that if they wanted to, they could easily get you for 6 violations within one week, while you think you're doing nothing wrong. Monitoring systems that are out to punish people will do so, since everyone breaks laws constantly. The average person in traffic (even walking) will commit enough violations to lose more than their daily pay if they would all be fined. We use the legal system to keep the excesses down. If

Let's see.... I use email to keep in touch with people that I personally know, I read and participate in assorted legitimate online forums and discussions, such as slashdot, stackoverflow, and others, I subscribe to certain youtube channels which only contain content that is copyrighted by the people who created the corresponding channel (ie, not any content that they copied from somewhere else), upload my own home videos to youtube, use itunes, and pay for all content that requires payment, keep all my

I refute your claim that I infringed on your copyright simply by reading your poem. In fact, there is an abundance of precedent that the mere act of USING a copyrighted work, even if it somehow makes a copy, does not, by itself constitute copyright infringement. If it did, then even the act of memorization would be illegal, since that is making a copy in somebody's head.

Feel free to talk to your lawyer about the matter. if you feel that I've actually infringed on your copyright.

I refute your claim that I infringed on your copyright simply by reading your poem.

No, not reading. Copying. You downloaded it as a necessary step before you possibly could read it. Check out the case I provided a link to a few posts ago; the opinion discusses how it works, and itself provides citations to other cases that provide the precedents it builds on.

I find that people generally are ignorant as to what copyright law actually is. They've got an idea which is not too objectionable, so they don't speak

The case involved the notion of copying content to a computer's ram when the person did not have authorization to even be using the work in the first place.

The author of the previous work made evident an obvious intent for his comment to be read by me, or else he would not have responded directly to me. In fact, the act of even putting it up on a public forum implicitly authorizes any user of that forum to read (but not necessarily copy) that post. However, a copy of a work which exists in a computer

Well, if you read my very first post on the subject here at the top of this thread, you'll find that this was actually *VERY* a key objection I had to the text they are using in the alerts, albeit not an objection to system as a general concept.

Well, I hope you don't ever download that reply to read it, because it's copyrighted (and if you look at/. agreement, I still hold all the rights), and you won't like to copy a copyrighted work, will you?

So, you've never recorded a TV show and kept the copy for longer than it took you to watch it once?

You've never downloaded any music, video, or even text without first verifying that the site serving the content had permission to do so? You've never shared more than a link to site with someone, but instead shared the actual content (cut and paste to e-mail, printed it out, etc.)?

There are literally hundreds of other examples of things that you likely do that almost certainly mean you have obtained content

So, you've never recorded a TV show and kept the copy for longer than it took you to watch it once?>/blockquote>Keeping recorded shows longer than the time it takes you to watch them might not be something that content holders particularly like, but it's definitely *NOT* a violation of copyright as long as all such home recordings are watched in the context of private home viewing.

Secondly, quoting from something or using small snippets of a sourtce is not copyright infringement either (it's fair us

Keeping recorded shows longer than the time it takes you to watch them might not be something that content holders particularly like, but it's definitely *NOT* a violation of copyright as long as all such home recordings are watched in the context of private home viewing.

The court rulings about home recording are pretty clear, and all of them stress the limited time nature that makes it fair use. Once you start building a library, it's infringment.

Secondly, quoting from something or using small snippets of a sourtce is not copyright infringement either (it's fair use, actually), as long as 1) the source is acknowledged; 2) the amount of content so quoted or copied is small (a subjective term, but generally fairly easily agreed upon when its actually applicable) relative to the copyrighted work's entire content; and to some extent 3) is contextually relevant to the larger work in which it is contained.

All of this is completely wrong. You do not need to attribute a source for it to be fair use. Attribution is a scholarly rule, not one of copyight.

Second, courts have found that copying whole works is still fair use, while in other cases even insanely short snippets (1-2 seconds of a 3 minute song) are judged infringing.

Hey, I'm not saying that content distributors are particularly happy about it... and there's probably no small number of them that would prefer that such extended keeping of home-recorded content be considered an infringement of copyright.

Wishing doesn't make it so, however. It's not. As long as such content is utilized strictly in the context of private home viewing only.

If, as is described on the copyrightinformation.org website, the copyright alert system is implemented such that the IP addresses it gathers genuinely are being used by infringers, I don't have much of a problem with this, since I don't download infringing content, nor do I do anything which might permit or enable other people to use my internet connection who may, and I do not hold much sympathy for those who do.

As that response, in the context I provided, would be nothing less than nonsense, should I take your comment to mean that you just felt it necessary to really respond to what I had originally thought was just a rhetorical question? Or should I infer from it that the most productive thing you felt you could possibly add to my comment was to refer to the fact that my above comment employs a construction which was once considered a grammatical error, but that is no the longer the case? If the latter, I migh

You didn't read what I wrote very closely, did you?
>p>
Anyways, it's not the ISP's thar are trying to detect infringement, it's the companies that own the content, who would have no way to detect you were infringing on copyright in the first place unless the saw you downloading their content. The only way the mistakes you describe could occur (and I don't dismiss their possibility) is if they misidentify some particular content as their own.

The only way the mistakes you describe could occur (and I don't dismiss their possibility) is if they misidentify some particular content as their own.

Or for them to misidentify anything, like whether that IP ever uploaded anything or not (as in the case of the laser printers). It's just one step farther to "no computer at that IP ever ran any file sharing software", and with no penalty for incorrect accusations (and they get 4-5 per IP before they can even be called on it), I guarantee you that lots of false positives will occur, since accuracy isn't the #1 priority on their agenda.

This is not an educational system. It's a system designed to assign IP violation liability to the owner of the IP address where by eliminating arguements like "I didn't know it was occurring" or "it was an unauthorized user. I'm very glad to see scrutiny rising on the topic, there was little coverage in the days leading up.

Right. This is just a side system to gather information and make arguments for lawsuits they are not mentioning. Too bad the system is already flawed... see this post [slashdot.org] for an example of failure. If the ISP does not know what email address you actually use, you can't be notified. If you browser (and its network configuration) cannot be penetrated, you won't get a popup. They could still throttle your network down to 300 baud... but if you are paying a premium for a higher speed, then they are not provi

True. When this was first posted, I didn't need to read further than "browser pop-up" to realize it's a bad thing. I am a professional IT security expert, after a couple of years you get an intuition about stupid ideas.

Will it work? Are you kidding me?

Will it have unintended consequences? Nah... neeeeever... what could possibly go wrong?

The first two warnings – “educational alerts” – tell consumers they’ve been caught. The email will then direct them to legitimate sources of content with the hopes that the early warnings are enough to scare people into buying content.

I hardly use email anymore. I almost don't use it at all. What I do have, my ISP does not know about, unless they've been spying on my HTTPS connections to Gmail. I don't have ISP based email, or if I do, I have no idea what it is, or have a means to login. Why would I use email that would change if I need to change layer 3 ISP?

And what "legitimate sources of content" will work on my Slackware based computer? If they had that, I wouldn't need to be working around their broken sites.

The next two warnings step it up a notch with what’s called “acknowledgement alerts.” The first two alerts were simply emails, but these next two will actually hijack your browser. You will be hit with a message telling you that you’ve been caught yet again, and must acknowledge that you’ve been caught before you can start browsing.

Criminal actions and privacy aside, how the hell are they going to hijack my browser? I'm using HTTPS whever I can. I have 4 VPN setups to use. Sure, I do some insecure browsing like at Slashdot. But I don't use THEIR proxies, so they would have to add equipment than can do intercepts to traffic. So maybe it's possible for them to hijack my Slashdot traffic. But combining the interception and Slashdot's crazy content format, how can they make a popup appear safely... for every web site? And how will this even prevent browsing without cutting off service? Cut off port 80 if they think that stops anything of high value?

The next two tiers, and presumably every alert afterwards, will be “mitigation measures.” In essence, the ISPs will begin throttling your bandwidth or blocking Web sites you frequently visit. The ISPs will not be able to cut off your Internet connection under the plan.

I frequently visit Slashdot. I guess they are going to block that And I am paying extra for the higher tier (8 mbps... and it works). If they throttle below that level, they are violating the service offering they have for that extra payment. So I stop paying the extra.

for the last week, so far no emails, letters or pop up's from comcast. Ive wanting to see how much downloading does it take before I get flagged. Then once I know the triggers, I can switch to an anonymous vpn and try it again.

Would you also say that the ACLU doesn't back important rights because it advocates for the speech rights of groups you disagree with? Privacy doesn't mean being left alone to do just what _you_ think everyone else should.

The EFF is still fighting for internet privacy. That some people their privacy so they may violate IP laws is immaterial.

First of all, the appeal reviews are done by the American Arbitration Association (AAA), not the recording industry. You might argue that the AAA is in the latter's pockets, but at the very least, this is not what is alleged to be the case. We'll have to see how things go.

Secondly, you get the $35 back if the appeal is successful.

However, because the nature of the alert does not contain any information about what work was supposedly infringed upon, I'm uncertain how an accused person who might not

However, because the nature of the alert does not contain any information about what work was supposedly infringed upon, I'm uncertain how an accused person who might not have had *ANY* infringing content being downloaded through their IP can sensibly respond.

I'm sure that's by design. A feature, not a bug. They don't want millions of people trying to appeal their bogus claims, that would quickly become unmanageable. They nipped that problem in the bud by addressing it before it can become a serious problem.

No one said this would not be subject to all the typical internal communications problems inherint in large corporations. It's called "corpolag". They will notify you next year when you have forgotten all about it.